Jump to content

- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

Poll: Is the U.S. going to invade Iran

Is the U.S. going to invade Iran

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#101 elle



  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Cali

Posted 19 March 2008 - 04:15 PM

QUOTE (garmag @ Mar 19 2008, 04:31 PM)
You could read about Rice/Gates visit to Turkey in the Turkish Daily News.
The Russian visit was on CNN and reported by intern. news.

The Azery skirmishes were all over in the Armenian and Azery news. Feeling the gounds of the Armenian resistance?
It is in the wests'/Israeli interests to secure Azery oil pipelines.

It is interesting an ex Democrat/Independent/Republican that might grab vice presidency... if McCain gets elected.
It did not work with Gore...
You can draw your own conclusions as to whom all the above scenarios will give security in the long run.

I mentioned this in one of the posts...I was saying that the new Artsax war is not in the interest of anyone right now because of the oil pipeline that's running not too far away from where the Armenian troops are stationed in the buffer-zone.
If there's a war that breaks out, there's no protection of the Israeli oil pipeline.
Also, because of the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) that Armenia is part of, if it gets attacked by a non-member state (Azerbaijan is a non-member state...it's part of the GUAM instead), there will be a collective resistance in the NK war. I found this article in a Russian newspaper, so I translated the whole thing on goodle language tools, so you might see some grammar mistakes, but that's because the program translates things word by word, so few things might not make sense.
I think that these trainings are semi-related to what we discussed above.

Salvation Army to CSTO
Military Organization took chrezvychaykoy

In Moscow, the first meeting of the Coordinating Board for Emergency Situations States - members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Participants agreed to jointly monitor the situation on the common space in terms of not only war-risk insurance, but the environmental, technological, humanitarian. In order to confront and prevent possible disasters.

The objectives of the establishment of a system of collective emergency response Coordinating Council of State members - members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization of Emergency Situations (KSCHS) identified increased levels of national and collective security, as well as the adaptation of the CSTO in world processes to counter threats and challenges, emergency prevention and response.

The basic blocks the formation of a system of collective emergency response mechanism are environmental monitoring, and assessment of situations and forecasting their development, as well as emergency humanitarian response unit. For the creation of such a mechanism were in the heads of all departments on emergency States - members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. In doing so, they noted that the monitoring is needed for all possible types of threats: technogenic and natural, Epidemiology.

Regarding the humanitarian emergency response units, the formation of CSTO see the type of six years in the format of the Organization of collective rapid deployment forces (CSIS). Each State shall make available to CSIS permanent readiness units, which in times of peace are in the territory of their countries and subject to national commands. Last meet, and for their equipment, training, logistics. But while weapons, communications equipment from units assigned to the coalition group must be sopryagaemy and training has on the same programme. In the event of an emergency by the Board of formation of collective security they pass under the command group and propounded in the area within their area of responsibility.

The scheme not only exists on paper. Within the organization rehearse international agreements regulating the diversion of emergency units CSIS with weapons in any region of the area of responsibility of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. This means that in an emergency situation would not spend time on the harmonization of the many associated with border crossings troops. By the way, and the issue developed. CSTO has already conducted five joint exercises with CSIS redeployment of units in different States - members of the organization: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan.

On LiveJournal Place in a similar principle and the establishment of planned "Salvation Army CSTO." So its legal base to allow for emergencies produce instant lift brigade rescuers (planned that the collective forces of each State will provide specialized units: rescue workers, epidemiologists, experts in the elimination of technological catastrophes, disasters at nuclear power plants, etc.), equipment needed and goods, with regular exercise, with a unified system of training, logistics and even scientific approaches. By the way, the collective response to disaster in a format CSTO Develop began even before the formal establishment of the Coordinating Council. In April 2007, for example, in Belarus, with the participation of representatives of the States - members of the organization were held exercises to eliminate the effects of man-made disaster caused by the terrorist attack. According to the head of the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, now need to focus on training, harmonization of legislation and creation of a pool of logistics.

#102 elle



  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Cali

Posted 19 March 2008 - 04:22 PM

QUOTE (garmag @ Mar 19 2008, 04:31 PM)
You could read about Rice/Gates visit to Turkey in the Turkish Daily News.
The Russian visit was on CNN and reported by intern. news.

The Azery skirmishes were all over in the Armenian and Azery news. Feeling the gounds of the Armenian resistance?
It is in the wests'/Israeli interests to secure Azery oil pipelines.

It is interesting an ex Democrat/Independent/Republican that might grab vice presidency... if McCain gets elected.
It did not work with Gore...
You can draw your own conclusions as to whom all the above scenarios will give security in the long run.

I read an article before, which I will try to find again, which stated that Hilary will be a more desirable candidate to win the Democratic primaries because she's not as tough as Obama, so the chances of McCain getting elected as the new president will be higher than if it was Obama who won the primaries. The elite will try to do everything possible to make sure that it is McCain who gets elected because he will go into war with Iran in no time once elected. That's obviously what the few elite would like to see and the whole US foreign policy nowdays is directed at that. It's interesting that you mentioned how Gora got ousted back in 2000 elections. Looks like the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were planned before, so they needed a Republican, more specifically the puppet named GWB to direct the war, but it's clear that Dick Cheney and the rest are more in control of the situation than GWB will ever dream of.

#103 elle



  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 482 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Cali

Posted 19 March 2008 - 04:32 PM

This isn't the article I was telling you about, but close enough....

McCain win would mean war with Iran

by David Edwards and Muriel Kane

"More wars" could prove to be the oddest of all presidential campaign slogans. Especially if it works.

Presidential candidate John McCain shocked observers on Sunday when he told a crowd of supporters, "There's going to be other wars. ... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars."

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked old-line conservative Pat Buchanan about McCain's remarks, saying, "He talked about promising that more wars were coming. ... Is he so desperate to get off the economic issue?"

Pat Buchanan replied that McCain never used the word "promise" but simply said there would be more wars, and that from McCain's point of view, "that is straight talk. ... You get John McCain in the White House, and I do believe we will be at war with Iran."

"That's one of the things that makes me very nervous about him," Buchanan went on.

"There's no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. ... His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He's in Putin's face, he's threatening the Iranians, we're going to be in Iraq a hundred years."

"So when he says more war," Scarborough commented, "he is promising you, if he gets in the White House, we'll not only be fighting this war but starting new wars. Is that what conservative Republicans want?

"I don't say he's starting them," Buchanan answered. "He expects more wars. ... I think he's talking straight, because if you take a look at the McCain foreign policy, he is in everybody's face. Did you see Thad Cochran's comment when he endorsed Romney? He said, look, John McCain is a bellicose, red-faced, angry guy, who constantly explodes."

"Not a happy message," commented Scarborough. "Not Reaganesque."

#104 Takoush



  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,025 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 20 March 2008 - 08:43 PM

I will make sure I won't elect John McCain for president. What is he, war happy? Another trigger happy idiot.

No thanks, I'll stick with Obama. Hopefully he'll be the winner.

#105 ED



  • Nobility
  • 5,960 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles
  • Interests:Music, traveling, Salvador Dali, Tolstoy, Sevak, Charents
    wine, sushi and lots lots more

Posted 20 March 2008 - 11:31 PM

QUOTE (Takoush @ Mar 20 2008, 06:43 PM)
I will make sure I won't elect John McCain for president. What is he, war happy? Another trigger happy idiot.

No thanks, I'll stick with Obama. Hopefully he'll be the winner.

Taqushik yete yes president uzem linel dzaynet ktas indz?

#106 Ashot



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,080 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Van Nuys, California, USA
  • Interests:Anything and Everything

Posted 21 March 2008 - 12:12 AM

Ed jan, menak dzayne? Yete du prezident lines yes kyanqnel k@n@viri qez... Takoushik@ aytpes lav axchika!!!

#107 Takoush



  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,025 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 21 March 2008 - 06:24 PM

QUOTE (Edward @ Mar 21 2008, 01:31 AM)
Taqushik yete yes president uzem linel dzaynet ktas indz?

Edo jan, yes voch te kez presidenti tzaynes goudam ayl ge djaraxosem kou masit vor shad shadernal kez dzayn dan yev inchbes vor Ashote esav yes gyankes al goudam kez hamar. kisss.gif

#108 Takoush



  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,025 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 21 March 2008 - 07:02 PM

QUOTE (Ashot @ Mar 21 2008, 02:12 AM)
Ed jan, menak dzayne? Yete du prezident lines yev kyanqnel k@n@viri qez... Takoushik@ aytpes lav axchika!!!


Edited by Takoush, 21 March 2008 - 07:03 PM.

#109 Takoush



  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,025 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 22 March 2008 - 09:15 AM

Եդուարդ ջան, վայրկեան մը, գէթ վայրկեան մը միայն արտօնեցէք որ երեվակայութեանս երազներուն մէջ ապրիմ հայրենասիրականօրէն, եւ ուրեմն երեվակայենք պահ մը թէ ի՞նչ անախննթաց վիճակի պիտի ենթարկուէր մեր Հայրենիքը եթէ դուն իրապէս Միացեալ Նահանգներու նախագահ ընտրուէիր մի հոյակապ արեւալից օր ի նպաստ մեր սիրելի հայրենիքին։

Եթէ Իզրաէլը հսկայական պատերազմներ կը մղէ Միացեալ Նահանգներուն մի միայն Իզրաէլի օգտին ի նպաստ; ապա քու միջոցաւդ մեր Արցախի հարցը պիտի լուծուէր ի նպաստ մեզի եւ Հայաստանի պիտի կցուէր. ինչպէս նաեւ մեր Նախիջեվանը, Արարատեան շրջանն ու մեր Էրզրումը։

Հայաստանը նաեւ պիտի կցէինք առ նուազն Սեւ Ծովու որ մնացեալ աշխարհի հետ կապ կարենար ունենալ եւ այդպէսով մեր հայրենիքն ու Հայաստանը հոյակապօրէն պիտի բարգաւաճէր ու հսկայանար աննախնթացօրէն։ Ա՜՜հ այն երազելի երազելի օրը։

Edited by Takoush, 22 March 2008 - 09:17 AM.

#110 Aratta-Kingdom



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 23 March 2008 - 01:46 PM

The Coming Uncertain War against Iran

Published on Saturday, March 22, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
by Ramzy Baroud

When Admiral William J `Fox' Fallon was chosen to replace General John
Abizaid as chief of US Central Command (CENTCOM) in March 2007, many
analysts didn't shy from reaching a seemingly clear-cut conclusion: the
Bush administration was preparing for war with Iran and had selected
the most suitable man for this job. Almost exactly a year later, as
Fallon abruptly resigned over a controversial interview with Esquire
magazine, we are left with a less certain analysis.

Fallon was the first man from the navy to head CENTCOM. With the US
army fighting two difficult and lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
and considering the highly exaggerated Iranian threat, a war with Iran
was apparently inevitable, albeit one that had to be conducted
differently. Echoing the year-old speculation, Arnaud de Borchgrave of
UPI wrote on 14 March 2007 that an attack against Iran `would fall on
the US Navy's battle carrier groups and its cruise missiles and Air
Force B-2 bombers based in Diego Garcia'.

Fallon is a man of immense experience, having served equally
high-profiled positions in the past (he was commander of US Pacific
Command from February 2005 to March 2007). The Bush administration
probably saw him further as a conformist, in contrast to his
predecessor Abizaid who promoted a diplomatic rather than military
approach and who went as far as suggesting that the US might have to
learn to live with an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Fallon's recent resignation may have seemed abrupt to many, but it was
a well-orchestrated move. His interview in Esquire depicted him as
highly critical of the Bush administration's policy on Iran; the
magazine described him as the only thing standing between the
administration and their newest war plan. Further, his resignation and
`Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's handling of [it] is the greatest
and most public break in the Bush team's handling of preparations for
war against Iran that we are ever likely to see,' wrote respected
commentators and former CIA analysts Bill and Kathy Christison on 12
March. `Gates has in fact publicly associated himself with the
resignation by saying it was the right thing for Fallon to do, and
Gates said he had accepted the resignation without telling Bush first.'

Fallon's resignation represents a bittersweet moment. On the one hand
it's an indication of the continued fading enthusiasm for the militant
culture espoused by the neo-conservatives. On the other, it's an
ominous sign of the Bush administration's probable intentions during
the last year of the president's term. Sixty-three-year-old Admiral
Fallon would not have embarked on such a momentous decision after
decades of service were it not for the fact that he knew a war was
looming, and - having considered the historic implications for such a
war - chose not to pull the trigger.

Unlike the political atmosphere in the US prior to the Iraq war -
shaped by fear, manipulation and demonisation - the US political
environment is now much more accustomed to war opposition, which is
largely encouraged and validated by the fact that leading army brass
are themselves speaking out with increasing resolve. Indeed pressure
and resistance are mounting on all sides; those rooting for another war
are meeting stiff resistance by those who can foresee its disastrous

The push and pull in the coming months will probably determine the
timing and level of US military adventure against Iran, or even whether
such an adventure will be able to actualise (one cannot discount the
possibility that as a token for Israel, the US might provide a middle
way solution by intervening in Lebanon, alongside Israel, to destroy
Hizbullah. Many options are on the table, and another Bush-infused
crisis is still very much possible).

In an atmosphere of hyped militancy, Fallon's resignation might be
viewed as a positive sign, showing that the cards are not all stacked
in favour of the war party. Nonetheless, it is premature to indulge in
optimism. Prior signs have indicated a serious rift among those who
once believed that war is the answer to every conflict. Yet that didn't
necessary hamper the war cheerleaders' efforts.

Last December, the National Intelligence Estimate - an assessment
composed by all American intelligence agencies - concluded that Iran
halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, and that any such
programme remained frozen. Meanwhile the
`bomb-first-ask-questions-later' crowd suggested that such an
assessment is pure nonsense. Republican presidential nominee Senator
John McCain has since then sung the tune of `bomb Iran', - literally -
and Israel's friends continue to speak of an `existential' threat
Israel faces due to Iran's `weapons' - never mind that Israel is itself
a formidable nuclear power.

According to Borchgrave, `McCain's close friend Senator Joe Lieberman¦
invoking clandestine Iranian explosives smuggled into Iraq, has called
for retaliatory military action against Tehran. He and many others warn
that Israel faces an existential crisis. One Iranian nuclear-tipped
missile on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv could destroy Israel, they argue.'

In fact, Lieberman, and other Israel supporters need no justification
for war, neither against Iran nor any of Israel's foes in the Middle
East. They have promoted conflicts on behalf of that country for many
years and will likely continue doing so, until enough Americans push
hard enough to restack their government's priorities.

An attack on Iran doesn't seem as certain as the war against Iraq
always did. Public pressure, combined with courageous stances taken by
high officials, could create the tidal wave needed to reverse seemingly
determined war efforts. Americans can either allow those who continue
to speak of `existential threats' and wars of a hundred years to
determine and undermine the future of their country, and subsequently
world security, or they can reclaim America, tend to its needy and
ailing economy, and make up for the many sins committed in their name
and in the name of freedom and democracy.

Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His
latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a
People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

#111 Aratta-Kingdom



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 02 May 2008 - 10:17 AM


29.04.2008 GMT+04:00

It is not clear, why a country having a lot of unsolved political
and economic matters needs another problem.

Lately in the relationship between Azerbaijan and Russia some kind
of tension regarding Iran, or to be more exact, regarding the nuclear
power-station equipment supply. Thermal equipment for the first Iranian
nuclear power-station coming from Russia was detained in Azerbaijan
about a month ago. On March 29 Russian road-train carrying thermal
equipment, destined for "Busher" nuclear power-station in Iran was
detained in "Astara". The negotiations of the representatives of
"Rosatom" with Azerbaijan about the equipment have been no success
so far.

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ At first Tehran decided not to interfere in the
process, declaring that problem should be solved by the general
contractor of the construction of the station; the Russian company
"Atomstroiexport". According to the official representative of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran Mohamed Ali Hussein, the Russian
party is trying to solve the problem as soon as possible. "In our turn
we demanded from the Azerbaijani Ambassador in Tehran also to take
some steps for the equipment to be in Iran as soon as possible. This
equipment is transported to Iran in the frames of international norms
and there should be no obstacle for that," said the Iranian diplomat.

The Azeri Ambassador in Iran Abbasali Hasanov is called to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Iran regarding the detention of the Russian
road-train on the Azerbaijani border. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Iran expressed his protest to the Ambassador regarding the created
situation. Tehran demanded from Baku to allow the transportation of
the equipment through Azeri-Iranian border.

The Azeri party confirms that Russia has not presented all the
necessary documents describing the character of the special equipment
intended for the construction of "Busher" nuclear power-station. The
Russian party in its turn says that the load has completed the
process of export control and the UN sanctions do not apply to
it. Earlier Russian sources in Moscow, which are familiar with the
created situation, said to RIA Novosti, that the road-train detained
in Azerbaijan is nothing but a political decision of the authorities
of the country.

After the detention of the equipment "Atomstroiexport" did not receive
any official inquiry from Azerbaijan concerning this load. Later the
Press Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan
Khazar Ibrahim announced that the republic has made inquiry about
the load to Russia.

"Azerbaijan calls upon Iran to keep from abrupt announcements
contradicting the diplomatic norms. No country has the right to talk to
Azerbaijan with ultimatum. This contradicts the relations between Iran
and Azerbaijan, as well as all diplomatic and ethnic norms. Azerbaijan
takes measures only in the frames of its legislation and international
regulations," said the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan. He
also mentioned that Azerbaijan will take a decision after receiving
an answer from the Russian party on the inquiry about the character
of the load.

The scandal definitely gains more and more attention and even had the
interference of the Department of States of the USA. According to
the Head of the Press-Service of the US Department of States Shown
McCormack, the question of the load for the nuclear power-station
construction in Iran, detained on March 29 on the border of
Azerbaijan and Iran must be solved by the governments of Russia and
Azerbaijan. "The USA has no reasons to suspect that the transportation
of load was against the UN Security Council," he said.

The measures of the official Baku are totally based on the policy
of Ilham Aliyev, who thinks that his country is so independent,
that it can impose its conditions on if not on the entire world,
at least on Russia and Iran. Of course realizing that the detention
of the Russian load will not bring to any success, Baku immediately
started to justify itself saying the Russian party does not provide
with all the necessary documents. On the other hand one can understand
Aliyev; he wants to get support from the USA in case of the attack on
Iran. However, Baku has missed one important factor, the international
laws are necessary for every country and no military budget or oil will
be able to solve the problem. It is not clear, why a country having
a lot of unsolved political and economic matters needs another problem.

No matter how much the Azeri press tries to convince everybody,
it is very hard to live in a country rich with oil and gas. It is
very unlikely that offcial Baku is happy with the situation of the
country, but trying to shake the fist won't do any harm. And also,
making a base out of Azerbaijan for the US attacks on Iran will have
a negative response in the entire Islamic world, and first of all in
Turkey and Iran, with which spoiling the relations would not be of
any good for Aliyev.

#112 Zoolal


    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 19 May 2008 - 03:26 PM

It really depends on what the big multinational, mostly oil companies have plans for the future of Iran and that whole region. Together with US intelligence agencies, they decide on the socio-economic/political map of the Middle East. It's really not in the hands of Rice/Bush/Cheney and Co. Must read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins.

#113 MosJan


    Էլի ԼաՎա

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Little Armenia

Posted 11 September 2008 - 11:12 AM

US to invade Iran any day now?

A few weeks ago the Russian newspaper Izvestia, a well-known and authoritive daily published nationwide and abroad, came forward with something that would have been looked upon as a conspiracy theory if published by a tabloid. The paper suggested that by attacking South Ossetia, the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili had badly damaged a planned U.S. military operation against Iran. In the newspaper's opinion Georgia was supposed to play the role of another "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for the U.S., i.e. an operational and tactical base for U.S.
aircraft that would be making bombing raids into Iran. Something akin to what Thailand was in the Vietnam war.

Thailand certainly benefited from the arrangement, and Georgia would have too, insists the paper, if its President hadn't put his ambitions above the US national interest and ended up beaten, disarmed, chewing on his neckties and totally incapable of providing whatever the U.S. needs from him.

That's why, according to Izvestia in yet another article on the matter, the U.S. response to the Russian retaliation was harsh in words but very mild in action. The latest on the issue suggests that Mikhail Saakashvili may be replaced any day now by direct order from Washington.

Having read the story in Izvestia I decided to try to figure out the extent of improbability and impossibility of the assumptions. As I was doing that, I remembered that early in August CNN had started showing U.S. generals who cried for more troops and hardware for Afghanistan which, in their opinion, was rapidly becoming a more intensive conflict than Iraq.

Shortly after that, a phone call came from a college friend who had just come back from Kandahar in Afghanistan, where he had seen American battle tanks being unloaded from a Ukrainian-registered Antonov-124 "Ruslan", the heaviest and largest cargo airplane in the world. The friend asked if I had any idea what tanks would be good for in Afghanistan, and I said I didn't. It's an established fact from the Soviet war in Afghanistan that tanks are no good for most of the country's mountainous territory. They are good for flatlands, and the main body of flat land in the region is right across the border in Iran.

Later in August there was another bit of unofficial information from a Russian military source: more than a thousand American tanks and armored vehicles had been shipped to Eastern Afghanistan by Ukrainian "Ruslans" flying in three to five shipments a day, and more flights were expected.

Somehow all this, together with the series of articles in Izvestia, the information that all U.S. troops in Afghanistan are going to be reassigned and regrouped under unified command, the arrival of NATO naval ships in the Black Sea, the appointment of a man used to command troops in a combat environment as the new commander of the US Central Command and other bits and pieces. To my total astonishment, when they all fell together the Izvestia story started looking slightly more credible than before.

Today the U.S. media reported that there had been a leak from the Pentagon about a secret Presidential order in which President Bush authorized his military (most of which is currently on Afghan soil) to conduct operations in Pakistan without the necessity for informing the Pakistani government. The U.S. military in Afghanistan - or shall we say in the whole region neighboring Iran - is getting a freer hand by the day. And it is getting more and more hardware to play with.

Of course it's quite clear now that Georgia has lost its immediate potential as a nearby airfield, but after all, the aircraft carriers in the Gulf are not so far away.

Believe me I'm not saying that the U.S. is going to start an all-out war against Iran tomorrow. But aren't there indications that it may happen the day after tomorrow, a month from now, or on any date before the official handover of Presidency in the U.S.? Or, as some suggest, before the election?

I'm just asking the questions. But there are some people, like those working for Izvestia, for instance, who answer them with a "yes".

Evgeny Belenkiy, RT.

#114 MosJan


    Էլի ԼաՎա

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Little Armenia

Posted 12 September 2008 - 10:41 AM

<h1 class="big center">U.S. USES ISRAEL TO ATTACK IRAN</h1>
  • Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert summoned Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for an urgent consultation on Iran Wed. Sept. 10, as the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier headed out to the Mediterranean for missions “in support of maritime security.” Its arrival will bring the number of US aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea to four, compared with two Russian warships. Most of the Russian fleet in the region is concentrated in the Black Sea whence it has easy and rapid access to Middle East waters. The Roosevelt will be followed by its strike force, which includes the guided missile cruiser Monterey, the guided missile destroyers Mason and Nitze, with 7,300 sailors and marines aboard, and the attack submarine Springfield. Sources report that the USS Ronald Reagan carrier and its strike group began engaging in assault and support missions for US and NATO forces in Afghanistan on Aug. 28. The Iwo Jima carrier group, whose decks carry 6,000 sailors, air crews and marines, supports the US Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean and Fifth Fleet in the Gulf with a massive amphibious capability. The USS San Antonio amphibious transport dock ship is the first vessel of its class to be deployed in the region as a platform for supporting Marine movements and operations ashore. The USS Peleliu carrier patrols the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. It is escorted by vessels carrying a large Marine contingent. Monday, Iran launched a three-day naval-air-missile exercise to practice defense tactics for its nuclear sites, DEBKAfile reports. Meanwhile, Alaska Governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin told ABC News that nuclear weapons under the control of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be "extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe." She called for a hands-off approach to Israel if it decided to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. "We cannot second-guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself," she said.

#115 MosJan


    Էլի ԼաՎա

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Little Armenia

Posted 12 September 2008 - 10:56 AM

New UN nuclear report on Iran 'to be presented Sept. 15'
18:31 | 12/ 09/ 2008 TEHRAN, September 12 (RIA Novosti) - The UN nuclear watchdog will present a new report on Iran's controversial nuclear program on September 15 in Vienna, the country's official IRNA news agency said Friday, quoting an informed source.

The report from the International Atomic Energy Agency's director general "will very likely be presented to the 35 members of the IAEA Board of Governors on Monday," the source said.

IAEA General Director Mohamed ElBaradei, in his previous report on Iran, presented to the Board of Governors in May, noted progress in clearing up the remaining issues on Iran's past nuclear activities, but said several questions remained unanswered.

In August Tehran hosted several rounds of talks between Iran's Atomic Energy Organization and the IAEA.

Iran has consistently rejected Western allegations that its nuclear program has military goals, saying it needs atomic power for electricity. Russia has almost finished building the country's first nuclear power plant in Bushehr.

#116 Aratta-Kingdom



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 15 March 2010 - 10:38 AM

US-Israeli Attack Against Iran Imminent

en.fondsk.ruĐ?rbis Terrarum
Yuri BARANCHIK (Belarus)

The statement that the US and Israel are bracing for an invasion of
Iran made by Israeli envoy to the UN G. Shalev shows that - after
failing to drum up international support for the offensive -
Washington and Tel-Aviv decided to act on their own.

Iran's civilian nuclear program is used as a pretext for the
aggression. The actual motivation behind it is that Iran's economic
and political integration into Eurasia, the space stretching from
France and Germany to China, would undercut the US influence over the
continent. It is not Iran's nuclear program, but its oil and gas
reserves that are important in the context as they can serve as the
basis of the economic development of China and the EU.

Under the current circumstances in international politics, France is
ready to sell military ships to Russia, Germany suggests integrating
Russia into the European armed forces, and the EU is looking into the
possibility of establishing its separate analog of the IMF.
Consequently, the US is no longer needed as a global moderator.
America's last resort in the struggle over retaining the role of the
global policeman is war. It does not matter that much what war and
against whom - making inroads into Eurasia is Washington's priority
and all it takes is not necessarily a serious humanitarian pretext.

Therefore, the imminent US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and
the accompanying embarrassment will be followed by destabilization in
Iran, which will for years arrest the socioeconomic development of
Eurasian countries, or by US seizure of control of Iran's oil and gas
reserves. This would allow the US to go on acting as the global

The US is invoking as the ideological basis the myth of the Russian
military threat to Europe - a successor to the Soviet threat myth - as
a pretext for intervening into the dialog between Europe and Russia.
The picture Washington is trying to paint is that Europe is
defenseless unless the powerful US patronizes it.

Similarly, the US is securing its presence in other parts of the world
by spreading appropriate myths like the ethnic cleansing in the former
Yugoslavia allegedly perpetrated by Serbs, the nonexistent WMD
stockpiles in Iraq, the alleged organization of the 9/11 terrorist
attack by the Talibs, Iran's nuclear bomb, etc. Provocation is
Washington's traditional instrument in the struggle for global

Accordingly, any warming between Eurasian countries that is not
brokered by the US tends to met with Washington's resistance (the
story of the organization of Russia's gas supplies to West Germany
being an example). The key conclusion to be drawn from the above is
that the US is the number one opponent of peace and of Eurasia's
steady development who provokes armed conflicts to derail progress in
international relations. Without conflicts, the US would see its
influence contract to the proportions of just one continent, its six
navies and countless military bases across the world - turn into
useless assets, and its nuclear arsenal - into a burden.

There is yet another reason why the US has to launch an aggression
against Iran - it is rooted in the US dollar's role of the global
currency. At the moment, the economic situation the US is finding
itself in is no better than in the epoch of the great depression. At
that distant time the US was dragged out of trouble by the
unprecedented war in Europe, not by Roosevelt's remarkable economic
endeavors. The US got out of the crisis at the cost of millions of
lives of Russians, Germans, Belorussians, Frenchmen, Poles, etc.

The present-day situation is similar - without a major war, the US
economy is doomed to either a dollar default or hyperinflation. The
same logic applies to Israel. Having lost the US superpower backing,
Tel-Aviv is forced to negotiate peace with the Palestinians more or
less on their terms. Such development can jeopardize the very
existence of Israel in its current shape, not due to the Arab threat
but rather due to mass out-migration of its own population.

No doubt, the US would readily blow up the world to safeguard its
global leadership and therefore, the US and Israeli war against Iran
is imminent. The key question is not when the war is going to erupt
but what other major countries are prepared to do to prevent a global

All military conflicts involving the US were sparked by provocations,
and the priority at the moment is to focus on neutralizing the
consequences of the provocation that the world is about to encounter.
The logical hypothesis is that the likely provocation to trigger an
attack against Iran is a detonation of a «dirty» nuclear bomb by the
US and Israeli intelligence services (or a blow-up of a nuclear power
plant) in Israel or somewhere in West Europe.

#117 MosJan


    Էլի ԼաՎա

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,818 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:My Little Armenia

Posted 12 September 2011 - 11:17 AM

Iran to officially launch Bushehr nuke plant within hours
Posted ImageSeptember 12, 2011 - 13:27 AMTPanARMENIAN.Net - Iran will officially launch Bushehr nuclear power plant within hours, ending the countdown for the inauguration of the first atomic plant in the country, Press TV reported.

The nuclear power plant is expected to be launched later on Monday, September 12.

In a joint press conference in the capital Tehran on Sunday, Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi and Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko both reassured the international community on the safety of the Bushehr power plant.

“It has always been said that Iran is a member of the [Nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. Iran is committed to all the international commitments existing within the framework of the NPT and the [International Atomic Energy Agency] IAEA's charter,” Salehi said.

The Russian energy minister, for his part, said that the plant meets all the international standards.

“The Bushehr nuclear power plant has been built, meeting all the international standards and under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Shmatko said.

#118 Johannes



  • Nobility
  • 2,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alép, Syrie

Posted 01 October 2012 - 11:48 AM

Truth should be said

Attached Files

#119 Johannes



  • Nobility
  • 2,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alép, Syrie

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:34 AM

Syrian Truth l Press TV l Breaking News l

Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps has captured a US ScanEagle drone over the Arab Gulf waters upon its intrusion into the Iranian airspace.

#120 Johannes



  • Nobility
  • 2,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alép, Syrie

Posted 18 December 2012 - 11:01 AM


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users